the kurdish region has been loyal allies of america for decades. the people are very brave and capable but i have heard that the necessary military supplies are not being delivered. they are putting the kurdish people at great risk. so again, what steps are made to certainly grarn guarantee and make sure that kurdish reason receives the necessary supplies to defend themselves.uarantee a sure that kurdish reason receives the necessary supplies to defend themselves. >> i don't know where to begin, congressman. i tell you where i'll begin. thank you for your two cents. we really appreciate the enormous contribution to the country. and i think what i'll do is i obviously disagree with your judgment about mistakes, red lines, things like that -- i mean, we can have an argument

about that but i don't think it serves in great purpose here today. so what i will do is ask o to be on the record for that and your son's service and that's what makes america great. >> i have a commitment that we will follow through with weapons. >> well, as i said, we are deeply committed. the kurds are essential partners in this. we have enormous respect for the courage they have shown and fight she have taken to isil. and we are aiming for success, congressman. believe me, the president is deeply committed to this effort. one theng i would say after the list of mistakes is i honestly can't think of a president who has taken more risks and put more on the line to fight the continued struggle against

terrorism specifically. his efforts in afghanistan, his efforts in pakistan, efforts in yemen, efforts in mali, efforts in libya. you can run the list. >> mr. secretary, one final question, yes or no, is america at war? >> well, you know, i'm going to answer that mr. chairman. but you know, a lot of people are debating this idea of what do you call it? do you call it war, don't you call it war. it is not a war like iraq where we invaded and had hundreds of thousands of troops mobilize. and you know, 16,000 sorites and so forth. it is not that kind of war. but if you care about what you call it, it is a war similar to what we did with al qaeda and terror. and sure, what i care about is

not what we call it. i guess about what we do. and i care about making sure we defeat isil and if you're more comfortable calling it a war against this enemy of islam, then please do so. we're happy to call it that. it is much more important to focus on that. >> time has expired. we have to go to jerry connolly of virginia. >> can you say that with some enthusiasm mr. chairman. i was listening carefully to my colleague from south carolina, and i must respectfully take issue. what happened in syria last year was a signal failure by this congress. in a very rare event, a president of the united states came to congress and said here's the problem. here's what i want do about it. give me app authorization.

and what did we do? we wrung our hands. we found all kind of rationalization for why we couldn't get ourselves to do it. i think we damaged the united states policy, united states standing, and you're respectability as an institution. so if we're going to start finger poenting, let's start with ourselves. having said that, mr. secretary, welcome back to congress. the fun never stops around here. >> mr. secretary, you bravely served your country and you have medals from an undeclared war in southeast asia. at that time we had two presidents who used the gulf resolution, basically to engage

in a massive ground war in mainland asia. that was a fairly flimsy basis. upon which to wage war. and all of us of that generation are cognizant of that. so i want to return, and i understand you're wearing a different hat today than you did when you were on the senate relations committee, but we heard you say, and we heard the president say, you welcome a congressal authorization. but i guess i would gently prod you, don't you need it? given a different time, different environment, different challenge, 13 years ago. and wouldn't it be better for our country, our allies and for the mission we're undertaking, to have a full blown debate and to request that authorization as

i believe the constitution of the united states requires. but i know we're not going to agree. i want to give you an opportunity. >> thank you, congressman, for your original comment. i think i said to you that of course, it would be better to have an update, better to have congress ratify and join in. better to have the american people represented by the congress through a good debate and what is happening, for sure. i haven't changed in all these years with respect to that. but it is not necessary for the president to begin the process that he is beginning. >> mr. secretary, if i could interrupt, because we have limited time. and you said you think you have all of the authorization you need from that resolution of 13 years ago. >> we are convinced, we've tested this very carefully, with lawyers and i have as good a set of lawyers as anywhere in the country, and in the state department and in the white

house. and they conclude without any question that isil began as al qaeda in iraq. and the authorization clearly in 2005, 6, 7, 8, referred to al qaeda in iraq. just standing up in 2013, a year ago, and saying we're no longer going to be part of this because we happening to worse than them and they don't like us any more, doesn't get you out from under who you are and what you are try doing and how you do it. and therefore, as long -- yes, a span of years. it wasn't something that any of us forsaw and it doesn't effect the legality that any of this still is the same group that was doing what they did in iraq, called itself al qaeda in iraq and called itself al qaeda in iraq and now they are continue doing the same thing in both places in iraq and syria. been convinced that the long standing relationship they had with bin laden, long standing

relationship with al qaeda, continued desire to attack the united states and u.s. persons, two of whom they've already murdered. we have the authority without any question and refer to the affiliates by the way, the language of the resolution referred to al qaeda and its affiliates. there is no question these guys are an affiliate. so we are convinced we have it. but yes we are definitely stronger as a country. which is why the president came to congress for the syria authorization previously. >> thank you. >> to texas chairman of committee on homeland security. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you mr. secretary for being here today. we've known about this threat for well off a year. it's been festering. this is a real wake up call for the american people about the

evil of isis or isil. we watched the president go through a very tortured decision making process. i think in part because it defines his narrative. that he campaigned on that he would end the wars and defies his legacy as well. having said that, i'm glad that you finally came around on the issue. listen to chairman joints of state that we cannot beat isis unless we go into sir why. we add briefing on the australian plot that was thwarted, this is an external operation out of syria involving beheadings of australians and potential attack on their fbi.

i don't want to see that happen in the united states and i know nobody sitting here today wants to see that either. i would commend your pick of general alan, that's one of the best decisions made. i think and i have always said that moderate muslim, that appears to be the strategy here. with the vetting process. now the syrians and weapons, and in terms of not proper training, the fact that this is off site in saudi, that we do have data bases sufficient to properly train and vet them, but eventually what turned me around is the fact that we are going to

train the moderate sunni muslim to combat the extreme sunni muslim. it is their fight. we can provide air strikes and we will have advisors and probably have special forces. but at end of the day, it is their backyard so my question to you is when you met with these nations that quite honestly threw a lost money indiscriminately that create this problem. seems to me they aught to be fixing it as well. what are they willing to put on the table it assist this effort and specifically are they willing to put a ground force. because that's what is lacking in syria. we don't have that in syria. i'm concerned that the number of 5,000 over a period of six months, when you look at 30,000 isis forces and growing everyday.

whether that's a realistic achievable strategy without more assistance from these others nations and particularly the arab world that i think has some responsibility to bear the burden. >> congressman, thank you for your leadership on homeland security and your service there. that's key tower safety. i think it sun fair to confuse careful with quote corps toured. i have watched the president ask a lot of tough questions that are appropriate and look for for consequences and i think careful is what people want in a president. secondly, the president has accepted general dempsey's advice. that you have to go into syria. you have to impact sir why and

you said that to the nation. and i think you cannot attack just in syria. if they have a safe haven there, that's contrary to the policy we've pursued about not allowing the sanctuary to al qaeda and pakistan or elsewhere. so you know, you can't contain, there's no containment with this group. no such thing as negotiations. nothing to negotiate. and i think everybody here understands that. so that requires the willingness to go get the job done. now in that context, you are correct, money has come from places that it shouldn't have come to these groups. and they marshed. and i think people would sit there in a moment of candor and tell you that today that they acknowledge that. that is part of what is giving us unit, purpose to rectify that now.

i'm very hopeful that, when you say with isis growing everyday and only 5,000, there are, you know, you get the classified numbers. but the classified numbers say there is tens of thousands of opposition fighters today. not 5,000. 5,000 is what the initial training can produce and if we are successful. if they can get setback sufficiently, young people and possible recruits will have a different attitude about where they might want to be. and with woman. and that could change very rapidly. so numbers are something that could be in flux. i'm not telling you with certain it is 5,000 p.m. that's a target. but i can tell you that i don't think these guys are 10 feet tall. and the intelligence tells us that as we have begun to hit them we've been able to prove

that to some degree. >> we go now to mr. ted deutsche of florida, on the subject of middle east and north africa. >> thank you, chairman. thank you, ranking member, for the opportunity to discuss directly with the administration the u.s. administration to the ice ill threat. mr. secretary, thank you for being here today. before going into my questions about this topic, i want to join mr. smith and thank you for your statements about the americans who have been held in iran and in particular i would note that as we approach the november deadline for nuclear talks with iran, we will also be approaching yet another thanksgiving that bob levinson will not be with his family. while i appreciate all of your efforts, i nevertheless want to continue to urge you to press

and urge them to show some humanity and some good faith by permit mr. levinson to be reunited with his family. the administration's been, as outlined, comprehensive strategy, for combatting the isil terror threat, that encompasses not just a targeted air campaign but also to cut off the financial support. and mr. secretary, you personally traveled to nearly every air on state securing our partners in the region. you and the president have helped to build a strong international coalition. and i support your efforts. i commend you for them and i think that we're grateful for them. i just wanted to follow up on mr. connolly's questioning with a couple of points. one, i would like to associate myself with his comments about the actions of this congress a year ago but i would also like to just suggest that while yesterday's vote was about

authorizing funding to support syrian opposition, that we do need to have a broader debate about authorizing the use of military force. that's not what yesterday's vote was. and while you may be precisely right, that the aumf from 2001 legally gives you the authority that's necessary, that there are an awful lot of us who weren't here to participate in that debate. and who would like the opportunity on behalf of our constituents to engage in a debate about the type of force that should be used, can be used, and in fact, then, ultimately once that determination is made to authorize it on behalf of americans today for this purpose. so i hope that we have that opportunity and i think that -- i think that is something that

administration should want and should request. shifting topics for a second. you were quoted in the press this week saying we are leaving channels open with iran. i would like to you explain exactly what we are communicating to iran. how much we know about shiite militias. who is on the ground in iraq. and finally, we're reminded that iran continues to be the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. aep that iran with a nuclear weapon would not only people empower its terrorists but spark an outrage through the region that would be so damaging as extremist group is are marching throughout middle east. given that there is less than two months to nuclear negotiations, if you could provide us with necessary assurances that our share goal of destroying isil won't be used by iran as pretense for

extending negotiations or for pressing the administration and our partners in those negotiations to accept anything less than an iran that does not pose a threat to the region and around the world. >> let me state unequivocally. there is no connection, relationship, dependency, between what we are currently about to be engaged in with respect to to this, you know, so-called isil, and these talks. and there's a real discipline on both sides, with respect to the focus on the talks. now everybody knows because we announced it that on the margins of the talks, there was some inquiry about isil and iran and

iran is against isil. and it would be malpractice not to inquire what their attitude is or what their attitude is about our engagement. we are not cooperating. there is no joint effort. but i think it's important, diplomacy is communication and mistakes are avoided by communicating. so there is no coordination, no change in our attitude, no shift in policy, no lichkage. but yes, there has been and we're open to, anything that could help to solve this problem we'll listen. without compromising our values and our interest. >> we go to texas chairman of the subcommittee on terrorism, nonproliferation and trade.

>> thank you. united states protects religious minorities who have been subject to isis in iraq. unarmed residents have been attacked, as you know, seven times resulting in the murder of a hundred residents, wounding a thousand others. myself and 26 other members of congress have sent you a letter asking you specifically what now will be done to protect those members of camp liberty. i would like for you to respond to the letter in writing as opposed to this hearing today. so i would like to move on to specifically what we're talking about with isis. the -- the way i understand the united states plan is, armed people in syria that have been vetted and with the intent of, i suspect, defeating isis and sir why and also, a strategy to defeat isis in iraq at the same time.

concerned about that because we armed the rebels, or the opposition in libya and now that hasn't turned out so well. libya to me is a failed state. i have a series of questions. you have made it clear that this is not islamic velocity. help me and the american people exactly who we are at war with.e exactly who we are at war with. people exactly who we are at war with.lhelp me and the american people exactly who we are at war with.lhelp me and the american people exactly who we are at war with.elp me and the american people exactly who we are at war with.lp me and the american people exactly who we are at war with.p me and the american peope exactly who we are at war with. exactly who we are at war with. i call them isis. islamic state of iraq and syria. okay, we are at war, counterterrorism operation, whatever you want to call it. who is the enemy? define the enemy for me. what would you call them? >> congressman, let me say

quickly, i share your concern, the administration shares your concern about the -- who have been too long and we recognize that. we have been able to work to get 384 residents out of there. >> excuse me, mr. secretary. i would like you to respond to that question in writing. because of the time limit. just answer the question, who are we at war with? i call them isis. who would you call these -- >> i call them the enemy of islam. because that's what i think they are and they certainly don't represent a state. even though they try to claim to. >> so officially, we should refer to them as the enemy of islam? >> well, i do. i don't know if that is an official -- >> what do we tell the american people? >> i hope you join me in doing that because that's what i think they are. i don't think they deserve to have a reference in their name to give them legitimacy -- >> are they an enemy of the united states?

>> excuse me? >> are they an enemy of the united states? >> they are an enemy of humanity. so. >> so i'm looking at the national security of the united states. >> definitively, it is in the national security interest of our country with americans over there, with passports, learning how to fight and taking part in this -- >> i agree with you. they shouldn't come back unless they are in handcuffs. i agree with that. >> for all those reasons, yes. >> what is the long-term strategy? to defeat this group, isis, if you don't mind me calling them that -- >> yes, it is. >> my best in treaties to call them something -- >> all right. long-term goal is to end their acts of terror and end their threat to the united states and other reasonons. >> you suspect that as long as it takes, is that real the

position of the united states, that however long it takes, we will defeat this group? >> well, the answer is, if your goal is to defeat them, you better be prepared to do it however long it takes. but that doesn't mean it has to take forever. if we all join together and support the right strategy and dot right thing and follow through, i'm confident that we can defeat isil. >> by any means necessary, we will defeat them? are we just going to defeat them with certain strategies? >> we have a strategy. and we think it can work and we have other options within that strategy if the first steps don't. >> syrian rebels aren't successful in defeating them on their poown. we have contingency plans --

>> we plan to defeat them the way we are going. >> to mr. brian higgins of new york. >> secretary, thank you very much no your extraordinary work on behalf of america. you indicated you characterize the free army at the beginning of your statement. and although that certainly characterizes it as part of the story, i think there's a lot more to tell with respect to this organization. it is between 40 and 50,000 fighters. by most accounts, has those that are secular and moderate, their best fighters are islamic, extremists and al qaeda affiliates. they are not unified. they lack an effective command structure. they have no political center. and the problem is, when you have a thousand militias and no political center, there are only sides to pick. so i would have some concerns about our reliance on the free syrian army to provide the

ground troop strength to help us succeed in this position. mission. obviously we can't depend on the iraqi army. the united states spent $25 billion to train and build a new army. the troop strength ng of the iraqi army was estimated to be 2 a,000. -- 250,000. and when isis moved on them, they ran. my question is, the kurdish military in kerg i stan, is estimated to be between 80 and 190,000 fighters. they're regarded as pro american. they are well equipped and well trained. and experienced. they are reliable allies as they assisted us in apprehending a bin laden ally in 2003. there is a stable political situation in kerg stan. they recognize minority rights.

are we partnering with the right organization in that part of the world to achieve our objectives? and why wouldn't we try to engage to a greater degree the pesh merga, given their history of reliance? so i ask you that question. >> let me begin -- a very good question, congressman. i begin by saying to you that numbers that you put out with respect to the size of the opposition, we don't agree that those are the limit of the numbers particularly with respect when you include the more -- islamic of those fighters. in particularly when you include some of the bad guys in that group. we don't include those. when i tell you there are tens of thousands, i'm not including, those people that we don't have

anything do with, that we don't have anything to agree with obviously. secondly, we're not relying exclusively with them. we are relying on the kurds. that's why you saw such a massive amount of support going into the kurds. with the p with the permission of the government offing about dad and that's why we bypassed and went directly to them without their permission. so i think you need to recognize what is already happening. kurds indeed can be a critical partner in this effort. >> yield back. >> we go now to matt salmon from arizona. >> thank you mr. secretary for coming to talk about the plan to defeat isis. i do believe it is unfortunate you couldn't come and answer our questions in advance of the house voting on the very issue. but i am pleased that at least

we get some of these questions answered today. my first question is, just five weeks ago, the president said it was his fantasy that free siryrn army can lead the fight. now it is their strategy to defeat isis. what changed to make the free syrian army a credible partner where before the president considered them a punch line. what the president said actually, that comment was made way back when. it came out recently, but he was referring, when the comment was made way back when, he was refer to when in the last administration people were talking about in the beginning whether or not they should be armed and so forth. he had reservations at b that at that time. and the reason is, that at that time, there was not the sense of stuck tour, capacity and

definition that there is today. so there's been a long road between what the president actually applied those comments to and what we are looking at today. we now have tens of thousands of people who are by wait, the princip principle, against isil in syria today. they drove them out of province. they are taking them on in the damascus suburbs. they are handling them in aleppo. a lot of people came to the fight. a lot of people gained experience. some went off to the most radical groups. and you know, we're not working with them. but a lot of them chose to be part of the free syrian army and to stay away from the more extreme and violent strain. so yeah, it is complicated. there are divisions. you have to understand that principle reason all these people are coming to syria is because of assad.

assad is the magnet that has drawn all of these foreign fighters there. and so -- >> and he is their top priority. i understand that. i just have one other question and i'm going to finish early. let somebody else have a chance. but there have been allegations that the so-called moderates in the region are the ones that sold reporters to isil to have their head cut off. if s there any intelligence that supports that? >> actually, there is intelligence that refutes it. that's an isil disinformation claim. and in fact, that never happened. as i said, false information put out by isil itself. >> i yield back. >> thank you. ranking member of the african subcommittee. >> like my colleague, i also took a very difficult vote last night. because i didn't see another al

tern piff. some people unhappy with my vote believe there is another approach and another strategy other than air strikes and arming the rebels. so i thought i would ask you two quick questions. why isn't there a diplomatic or political approach or strategy to address isil and then what are the lessons learned from the nato intervention in libya and how are the lessons being applied today? thank you. >> first of all, the united states of america has a firm policy which i believe is the right policy that we don't negotiate with terrorist. and i can't think of a group that is more defining of modern day terrorism than this group. secondly, there is nothing that they want that you can negotiate about. they want, they have decreed, their life philosophy and

pursuit at this moment is selling young women, raping people, killing them. anyone that isn't them, you can be killed. they are a vowed genocidists. and they went after whole groups of people defined only by not being them. if you wera zeety, you get killed. shia, you get killed. christian, you get killed. they made it clear, there is nothing to negotiate, either you join islam or die. what's the negotiation? so that pretty straight forward stuff. >> and the other questions about lessons learned from nato, intervention, and libya -- >> lessons learned from nato was the president made the right decision decision intervene because of what would happen in benghazi. and the president would be the first to tell you this, and all countries that were engaged --

and by the way, certain countries had taken the lead on that as you know with respect to activity, we agreed to support and be supportive. and certain folks were tasked with the follow-up afterward. the president would be the first to tell you that all nations were insufficiently focused on the follow-up. that's the biggest lesson of all. you cannot leave a vk vacuum. i don't think there was sufficient follow-up in libya. and efb would say that. >> mr. chairman, i yield the time. >> thank you mr. secretary for his time today. we covered a lot of ground today. the terms of threat to humanity. we will cover more in weeks to come and also want to continue to be in touch on other important issues in iraq. mr. secretary, like the safety of those at camp ashcroft, many

have lost their lives, we want to make certain to continue this dialogue with the state department takes concerted steps here in record for tekt their security. thank you members. the vote is on on the house floor. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. secretary.

>> there is a chance to be in the distance. >> no, no. i hope this weekend. >> and keep your focus. >> yeah. i know.

>> all right -- i like -- >> [ inaudible ]

>> other threats from foreign terrorist fighters and upcoming u.n. security council meeting. according to the trip to new york city. the president will be leading that meeting wednesday. shortly after addressing the u.n. general assembly. other stops during his trip include a climate summit and u.n. meeting to assess ebowl y whwha outbreak in west africa. you can hear more about it on c-span networks. >> open to all middle and high school student to create a five to seven-minute documentary, showing by the legislative or judicial branch of the federal government affected you or your community. there is 2 00 cash prizes for student totalling $100,000.

for the list of rules, go student cam.org. >> intelligence committee hearing recently on threats by isis. witnesses including former commander to the u.s. central command and former diplomat serving as u.s. ambassador to afghanistan, iraq, pakistan and syria. and this happened shortly before the senate passed the spepding bill that included authorization for arming syrian rebels in their fight against isis. this is two hours. >> call the committee to order. today the house committee on intelligence will hear from some of our nation's foremost experts on the threat posed by isil, al qaeda, and other islamic extremists to reserve time for questions, ranking member and i will reduce opening statements to three minutes. and have our -- ask our withins to dot same so we can get to questions. we have a hard stop with the

joint session with the leadership from ukraine today. as we move further away from september 11th, 2001, a concern that many are disconnected from the reality of this from al qaeda and islamic extremists. we heard that al qaeda with a was on the run. affiliate groups were not up to the tasks or jv squad. victory in afghanistan is too difficult and take too long. s syria is involved. security can be secure without our help. this has been wrong. and when we see journalists and ngo workers including two americans, beheaded by terrorists in syria, we are vividly reminded that it's wrong and that it will seek its other places today in australia, arrest of 15 individuals so associated with isil in an effort to decapitate australian citizens to prove their point.

i speak and i can only speak to the families of the americans in giving our heart felt condolences to the families of those two americans. 9/11 commission faulted the u.s. government for a failure of imagination to stop the attacks 13 years ago. today you don't need an imagination to understand the threat of isil. a brutal group of thousands of fighters holding western passports including hundreds of americans. we need a better plan to stop them. yesterday was the first good step and i would hope to get the comments from our panelists opt way forward on that as well. terrorists in yemen, syria and iraq take advantage of and expand safe havens with the one in afghanistan in 2001. they also have weapons and transportation resources to penetrate americans improved defenses. affiliates and related groups coordinate with each other and allow the strategic vision that was established by bin laden who

was al qaeda's leader before his demise. that radical vision which is to american's interest is bigger than one terrorist leader or one organization. terrorists groups have metastasized and made gains in otherern and western africa, middle east and south asia. we need a comprehensive strategy to meet this enemy. we need to renew our resolve and focus to confront and defeat them. >> turn it over now for opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you to our witnesses today. each of you brings a remarkable expertise and experience. we eagerly await your views on terrorist threats and what we can do about it. let me be clear. america fights because it has to, not because it wants to. when it fights, it fights hard. after 9/11 we have to take dramatic action against al qaeda over years that action is very effective. we have global capabilities, we have gotten bin laden and captured thousands of al qaeda terrorists. we have our military

intelligence, law enforcement and diplomatic attacks only when necessary. because of the programs congress set up, funded and everseen, there is no atobactack on our homeland. new terrorists threats emerge and threat. spread. and the worse of them, isil. isil is a truly barbaric group that is the worst of human kind pf they are well finance ped. they seek it i a tack us. they pose a direct threat to the u.s. and our jl ice. we need to ask against them and we are. but like the fight against al qaeda which is not over yet this will not be a short battle. this will be a long campaign. i want to make clear we cannot start like foxes, going out to grab prey, only to quickly retreat. we must strike hard when necessary but remember to build the capacity of others on the ground and to demand local and regional responsibility. iraq must build a truly

representative government and middle east partners must take responsibility for maintaining stability and holding territory on the ground. we cannot be like a bull charging in every state. allowing ourselves to be good and draw out in distance lands. we need to avoid the mistakes of the past. we need to be smart, precise, and engaged. we need to target their leadership, and sources of new recruits. as the president said, if you threaten america, you will find no safe haven. correct. we have the best intelligence of the world and we will find you. we will find you and as the vice president said, well follow you to the gates of hell if necessary. before our counterterrorism state to work we have to have a positive vision that only america can provide. we have leader of the free world so we must stand up and show what freedom means. thank you to our witnesses for being here. we look forward to your recommendations. thank you, mr. chairman.

we yield back. >> we have a very distinguished panel today. retired general james mattis, former commoner of u.s. sentcom. as far as ambassadors or diplomats go, needs no introduction. former ambassador to iraq, syria, pakistan, kuwait and lebanon, and every -- he likes trouble. apparently. in his diplomatic career. and we are grateful for it. and deputy director of study are fo and national security council we appreciate your work there. also an expert don mestic and political development on international security specializing in the middle east and north africa. i think your expertise and credentials certainly are welcome here and we appreciate you being here. and with that, i'm going to turn it over to the panel for your opening statements.

general we go from left to right. >> thank you, chairman rogers. ranking member ruppersberger. it is a pleasure to be back here. i'm just looking back on my years of active doughty. i don't forget the depth that all of us in the military owe the committee and congress for support you gave us and frankly an honor to come back and see you all again and now i speak for "i", not "we." at the same time, sir, i submitted my written statement. and i asked to be accepted for the record. i wanted to just thank you all because i think that the relevance of this hearing cannot be overstated. the will of the american people, largely caught up and what comes off capitol hill and i think we are up against an isil, very formidable enemy. part of a larger group and has a

regional strategy and by the ranking member. this is a long term fight. an era of skirmishing over many years. and it is going to be a time somewhat akin to the u.s. calvary versus american indian 1850 to 1905. . over in one year or two yearnot years. i won pay troe niez the violent jihadist of either strien. strai that said, i prefer to leave the rest of the time for questions, sir. i'm ready to take questions. thank you. >> ambassador? >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member roethlisberger.

i want to thank the committee at this critical time and everything you have done as a committee in 9/11 to keep this nation focused and to keep this nation safe. thank you, sir. >> i have been in the middle east to, as you pointed out, mr. chairman, for a long time. probably way too long. and i have seen anti-american terrorism go through various stages. palestinian terrorism and in the '70s, that is responsible for the assassination of one of my predecessors, as ambassador lebanon. the rise of hezbollah in 1980s. and i was in beirut in the embassy when it was blown up. i was still in beirut six months later, october 1983, in the marine barracks, blown up by hezbollah. hezbollah is still with us as a scourge in syria.

the '90s brought us bin laden. and then 9/11. since then, as ranking member noted, we have done a lot to degrade al qaeda. by al qaeda is a very, very formidable force and we have seen it metastasize, as you have pointed out. in two various franchises and sub franchises. now we face the islamic state. something new and even more dangerous. and i would point out, mr. claireman, members of the committee, it is all in the name. it started out as isil, as isis, islamic state in iraq and syria. then bolder in its ambitions, as islamic state in iraq and levant. now it is simply the islam ek

state without borders. they know no bounds. so we must show leadership. we must con front a menace and threat that we have never seen before.front a menace and threat that we have never seen before. understand that we can't do it ourselves. that we need to lead a coalition. but that we must lead. this will not happen without strong american leadership. thank you for bringing some of that leadership here today. >> chairman rogers and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me. thank you also for your service doing the difficult and challenging work of overseeing the intelligence community. in terms of the threat by isil, al qaeda and associated groups, the jihad movement has taken advantage of the weakening of the structures in the arab world and borders among the states. the individual fighters, organizational affiliations and organizations themselves are now fluid and decentralized.

above all, is isil, terrorist army with vast resources under its control. a group attracting recruits and military sophistication. much of the conversation this week has focused on the strategy to degrade isil. i believe this is a judicious strategy and necessary to protect american interests and advance american values. therefore, parts of the strategy are a bit more long-term. and it is necessary for the u.s. government to also focus on these areas intently to address the roots of the terrorism problem. it is in these areas where effective and intelligence gathering and u.s. assistance can agrees the underlying factors that gave rise to isil. four areas i would like to touch on briefly. first, unanimity about the threat from isil. there is a coalition building. we need to translate the

diplomatic agreement into action. we need to push our allies to create and execute new domestic homeland security policies and new foreign policies. for example, we need to work with our european and turkish allies. and need to talk about the specifics of the syrian end game. second, experience dealing with the efforts in region, we need to utilize our lessons learned from 13 years of this. to deploy the most effective deradicalization messages and efforts. and third, we are now serious about a counter financing strategy. we need more analysis to understand how each of the groups are funded, either through foreign patronage or self financing. we can use that information to work with the private sector and our allies can squeeze out the finding. and finally, the goal of good governance may seem very far off at this moment, give beheadings and carnage building across iraq

and syria. but build strong and effective institutions at the national and local level providing service and jobs, opportunities and fairness are the best way to shield these communities from groups such as isil. we should continue funding civil society, institution building and security sector reform. in short, over the next weeks we will necessarily focus on the imperative and military intervention. but that cannot be the entire part of the strategy. we cannot lose sight of the institutional and systemic changes critical to destroying isil and other groups. thank you, and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, whether chairman. to anybody that is important to get their abe be a league partners involved, i get that. can they get out front? i know america has to lead. but can they get out front further than what we have seen at this point?

>> congressman, an excellent question, the role of our regional partners is going to be critical under a number of ways. not least in showing the world including the muslim world that this is not the west versus islam as the islamic state will try to paint it. but it is moderate. both muslim against extremists who are enemies of both. so they need to lead politically and to do it credibly, it is they who have to do it. to expect a military lead from them, quite frankly, sir, not any time soon. and i think we are prepared for that. i think that's what we saw yesterday. it is also the resolve of this house. it is clearly resolve the administration that we are going to lead the effort to take the war to the enemy. we are doing so in iraq and we

will now do so in syria. and my understanding is we will do so in a way that is definitely going to get that enemy's attention. but i think we have got to be in the forefront of this. we have seen the saudis prepare to take on the role of training moderate syrian oppositionists, and uae, it will take time to build and solidify this coalition and in order do that, they have to be sure that we are committed, as general madison said, chairman and ranking member, for the long haul. what we are not getting started, get them in, and then pull back. so it is going to take a little bit of time to build neutral confidence because we he have questions about them. but they will be a vital member and i think over time, a more and more engaged member of a

coalition. they are already starting. >> sir, i would only add that the fewer restrictions we place on our own selves going into this, the more apt we are to see other nations give their full measure. if we put any restrictions in terms of how much time we're willing to commit to it, or if we say there are certain element of our national power that we're going to take off the table in advance, it can perhaps work against it in terms of building the coalition that will give full support. >> before i go to you, you talk about not taking things off the table, one of the things discussed recently is can we do this without putting bots on the ground, that is a hypothetical at this point, and it is a political issue for the administration and any administration, doesn't matter who it is, we need to look the at realities andadministration administration, doesn't matter who it is, we need to look the

at realities and is taking combat troops off the table today a mistake? >> sir, my personal approach to something like this is no one's more reluctant to go into something that the chairman ranking member mentioned. we didn't look for this. once you go into it, you don't tell your adversary in advance what you're not going to do. we have the most skillful morse fiercest and most ethical ground forces in the world and i don't think we should reassure the enemy in advance that they will never face them. i think it is good to leave that in the commander-in-chief's hands and should we need to employ them, you do so. it also sends a reassuring note, that secretary kerry is trying to pull together, that on the military side we're all in. i'm not saying commit them but certainly don't pull it off the table, sir. >> thank you, sir. can you talk about the arab league, partners and how far

they are willing to get out in front. >> sure. the arab league talks publicly about the threat. because they need to convey to their public, to their citizens, how important it is to the security of these states. there is a start on this on september 7. the arab league issued a statement. that was a good start but that needs to continue that discussion of it in arabic in their own media on this issue. but in a addition to the efforts that's been mentioned militari y militarily, i think there are foreign fighters working on humanitarian assistance and as well of course to train. >> thanks, mr. chairman. thank you all very, very much for being here tp thank you for your service. general, isil is different than the terrorist groups that we've been fighting in that region in the past.

they are a more nation state like structure rather than decentralized. is that a more difficult, is that a -- do they present more vulnerabilities that way or are they more difficult to deal with? >> as senator feinstein describe them is the most vicious, most well-funded and most militant extremists. and also territory as you point out, that can be a vulnerability if we commit to taking them down.